In Uganda today, determining who qualifies as an employee has become increasingly complex. Businesses now seek to manage rising labour costs—including statutory obligations like NSSF, PAYE, and leave entitlements—by adopting alternative engagement models. Many employers classify workers as interns, freelancers, consultants, or independent contractors. They assume these labels shield them from legal duties.
Ugandan courts consistently reject this assumption. They emphasize that employment status depends not on titles or contracts but on the actual nature of the working relationship. Two recent rulings illustrate this principle and highlight the serious legal risks of misclassification.
The first case, Kasito Robert versus Services & Computer Industries, involved a terminated intern who sued for unlawful dismissal and statutory benefits. He argued that, in practice, he functioned as an employee. The court referred to the Employment Act, which defines an employee as someone under a contract of service or an apprenticeship contract. Notably, the Act does not define “intern.”
To address this gap, the court consulted an International Labour Organisation (ILO) Working Paper from 2018. The paper describes internships as arrangements primarily designed for skill development and professional exposure—not regular employment. Based on this interpretation, the court ruled that Kasito was not an employee and therefore did not qualify for statutory protections.
However, the ruling left a key issue unaddressed. The court did not examine whether the internship matched the Employment Act’s definition of an apprenticeship. That definition includes structured training, supervision, and formal recognition of skills—features common in many modern internships. In future cases, if courts find such elements, they may classify similar internships as apprenticeships. This would grant full employment status and associated rights.
Thus, stakeholders should not treat Kasito’s case as a blanket exemption for interns. The legal boundary remains fact-specific and unsettled.
The second case, Yusuf Baliruno versus Central Broadcasting Services, tested long-term freelance work. Baliruno worked as a sports presenter for nearly 19 years. When the station ended his engagement, he claimed unpaid salary, leave, unremitted taxes, and damages for wrongful termination. The employer maintained he was a freelancer paid per assignment.
The court refused to apply a rigid test for employment status. Instead, it adopted a holistic approach, weighing factors such as control, integration into operations, remuneration structure, and industry norms. Control proved decisive. The station did not dictate how Baliruno produced or presented his content. His broadcasts were live and unsupervised. He had no fixed working hours, faced no internal disciplinary measures, and received no managerial oversight—classic signs of non-employment. The station treated his payments as honoraria tied to specific assignments, not as a regular salary.
Importantly, the court held that longevity alone does not create employment status. It found it implausible that a genuine employee would work for nearly two decades without requesting written terms. This lack of documentation significantly weakened Baliruno’s claim.
Together, these cases deliver a clear message: substance outweighs form. An intern may qualify as an employee if their role mirrors an apprenticeship. A long-serving freelancer may remain independent if they operate with autonomy.
This judicial stance reflects the realities of modern work, especially in media and digital sectors where traditional control-based tests no longer suffice. Legal experts Lincoln Paul Kalema and Denis Yekoyasi Kakembo observe that Ugandan courts focus on how individuals actually perform their work—particularly their level of integration and the degree of employer control.
Employers who misclassify workers may gain short-term savings, but they expose themselves to significant legal risk. Statutory obligations arise whenever the facts indicate an employment relationship, regardless of contractual labels. At the same time, workers must understand that duration alone does not guarantee rights. They must support their claims with evidence of mutual obligation, employer control, consistent pay, and functional integration into the business.
In conclusion, businesses in Uganda must look beyond job titles. True employment status emerges not from labels, but from the day-to-day reality of how work unfolds.
READ: Kenya’s Producer Prices Hit Three-Year Low, Signaling Consumer Relief
